- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:20:04 +0100
- To: "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:19:11 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote: > Philip Jägenstedt, Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:35:54 +0100: > >> I support replacing the autobuffer attribute with a buffering attribute, >> Absence of autobuffer is replaced with buffering="auto" (um, this >> reversion *will* confuse, but oh well) while its presence is replaced >> with >> buffering="full". It's possible to add any number of states, but I don't >> support adding a third buffering="minimal" until it is shown in a >> browser >> that distinguishes between the first two states (e.g. Firefox 3.5) >> actually need a third state. If speccing only two states makes the >> change >> seem pointless, I would tend to agree, but at least it leaves the >> possibility of adding more states should they become necessary. >> >> Note: I'm not saying that a "minimal" state will be pointless for all >> future, I'm saying that it's better to wait on a proof-of-concept >> implementation that does something useful before deciding what to call a >> new state and what its conformance requirements should be. > > If we are to start with two values only, then why not "full" and > "minimal" instead of "full" and "auto"? 'Minimal' is still only a word > that means "as little as possible" - thus it is understandable that > exactly how little depends on what the UA is able to do with the > resources at hand. I wouldn't mind that if the absence of the attribute or any unknown value is equivalent to "minimal". -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 18:18:57 UTC